Posted on 08/07/2016 8:28:28 AM PDT by LS
Without rehashing polls, many of you have seen this posted today: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3457298/posts
This COULD be like those "Cruz surging" insider polls. Indeed, like www.longroom.com it could be just smoke and mirrors---except longroom was dead on in 2012, more so than little Natey Silver.
The latest CBS poll is more of the same, 8-point Cankles lead with a D+10 sample. Just to point out, though, I'm seeing in these polls this happen a lot: they will cite a sample of "1000 adults" then say "of whom 800 were registered voters." Leaving aside that "registered voters" are usually still about +2 toward the D side, what they AREN'T telling us is whether the sample they used to actually make up the poll were ONLY the "registered voters" or if they liberally salted the sample with adults to get their results. Of course, no legitimate pollster would do that---but then again a legitimate pollster wouldn't change methodology like Reuters did because he wasn't getting the results he wanted.
Now, the story cited above seems like it might be credible for some of the following reasons:
1) In the last few weeks Freepers have been posting the dramatic shifts in FL and NC voter registrations. In NC, there was a net change of 125,000 toward the Rs (i.e., D losses, R gains). Now, every one of the 100,000 fewer Ds might be an "I" planning to vote for Cankles---or could have moved, died, or become one of the 25,000 Rs. But this is significant. In two swing states, the direction of the registrations is very noticeably away from Ds and toward Rs. That alone would make both those states Trump states in November.
2) As has been pointed out in many places, Trump's dominance in social media is staggering---sometimes four, five, or six times that of Cankles. I know: the standard argument is that this doesn't matter. Except that's what WE all said in 2008 when Obama was building up the very same massive social media advantage over McCain. What this does show is energy and interest. The exact translation into votes may not be clear, but to deny any translation into votes is a serious error.
3) Energy. We've mentioned this again and again. There is none on Cankles' side. There is tons on Trump's side. In almost every previous presidential campaign I can recall, the side with the most energy wins. (In 2000, I think both sides were equal). Again, this merely reinforces that article posted above, which could be horsepucky but has the aura of believability given social media and energy.
FINALLY, about 3-4 weeks ago I began to conclude that Trump's team really has a 90-day campaign in mind, that these July-early August weeks were not viewed as the key to winning. I think you see this in ad spending. You see it in Manafort's comment today that they were in a 90 day campaign mode. Again, this is very indicative of a VERY DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN than we've ever seen. Not tons of ad buys, but a blitz in the last few weeks.
Finally, there is a report that Cankles has pulled all advertising from Virginia. If true, this would be further confirmation that, despite the polls, something is up.
How many of Hillary's Twitter followers are "bought and paid for" pseudo-eyeballs? Potemkin Voters all the way down.
Also, is pulling out of Virginia -- leaving aside the Bill-Clntonesque puns for the moment -- a sign that McCauliffe's authorizing 200,000 felons to vote, has put Virginia *in the bag* for the Dems, or a sign of circling the wagons around Chicago, Vermont, NY/NJ, Maryland, and the Left Coast?
Looking forward to the next 90 days. I'm getting calluses on my finger from hitting the fast-forward button during the Olympics. "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved.." , "Im Hil--" . Where are the Trump ad buys? I guess most people who would sit there watching women's rowing (guilty) are probably Dem voters anyway.
“Finally, there is a report that Cankles has pulled all advertising from Virginia. If true, this would be further confirmation that, despite the polls, something is up.”
If true, is their any reasonable explanation other than the dems think they have Virginia in the bag?
I can’t imagine they’d think that. It’s ridiculous, ESPECIALLY if the voter reg trends we are seeing in NC and FL are comparable.
They are trying to say Hillary has pulled VA ads because she is so far ahead of Trump she does not need to spend dollars there. I’m not sure I buy that.
Most of the polling right now is bogus as the pollsters are using registered voters not likely voters. 90 days out they should be sampling likely voters.
Polls rarely give enough info to make sense of them.
A ‘good’ poll is one that does.
No one has a handle on the turnout profile yet, so I’m leary of ‘likely voter’ polls.
Yeah, the election is 3 months away.
Polls are most useful as trend indicators. Take the spread of any poll. Call it “X”. Then compare that number to the next result from that same polling company. Make sure the demographic split or polling techniques haven’t been adjusted between the polling dates. If not, you have a moderately useful gauge of where things are trending. The more “X’s” you get from the same polling firm, the better trending data you have. But it is still only that. Trending data. Right now, I suspect the polling trends in this election are basically flat. And will remain so until the next very major news event. Which is inevitable.
Do you have a link?
This isn’t plausible at all. The last two polls I saw in VA were Trump by .5 and Trump by 4-5. So surely Cankles team doesn’t think it’s won. Besides, they spend money like they have it, so what’s the problem with keeping the ads on?
I have not seen any numbers that show Trump losing big in VA either. I did hear something where the Clinton campaign said that they were pulling ads because they think VA is sewed up. What else can they say? My belief leans toward if they are pulling ads they think VA is a waste of dollars.
N VA is always tough for the GOP but Trump is not a normal GOP candidate. IMO he likely has an excellent chance to take VA in the general.
Like I said, Hampton U. poll had him up .5 and another poll had him up 5, but neither is a “known” firm.
Course, the “known” firms are crap this year.
I’m putting zero faith in any polls that have been conducted in the past 10 days. I am looking to see what starts to shake out in a couple of weeks from now.
This Khan thing which in retrospect was a misstep is going to go away as soon as something else jumps into the news cycle. Hopefully Trump will stay out of the weeds from now on and just concentrate on attacking Hillary. Her corruption and lying is endless. So much ammo so little time.
Mook paused ads in VA and CO. They only have one new ad anyway ... they are waiting on Manafort's blitz ...
As in 1980, the country wants change but is unsure of the challenger. A decisively large slice of the electorate will wait until the last week to decide. In 1980, by the end of a long, tough campaign, Reagan had shown himself to be acceptable and there was a strong surge in Reagan’s favor. We shall see if Trump is able to generate the same sense of confidence among late deciders. If so, he will win with an unexpectedly large margin.
“Mook paused ads in VA and CO. They only have one new ad anyway ... they are waiting on Manafort’s blitz ...”
That makes complete sense. Thanks for sharing that info...
Hillary “pausing” from running ads in VA is a sign of confidence according to published reports.
Seems like arrogant overconfidence. I can’t imagine why it’s being done unless the money is needed elsewhere.
She’s running ads on Roanoke DBM affiliates. Just saw one last night. And it wasn’t a PAC - she “approved this message.” So somebody’s reporting is erroneous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.